SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
Federal air marshals have begun following ordinary US citizens not suspected of a crime or on any terrorist watch list and collecting extensive information about their movements and behavior under a new domestic surveillance program that is drawing criticism from within the agency.
The previously undisclosed program, called "Quiet Skies," specifically targets travelers who "are not under investigation by any agency and are not in the Terrorist Screening Data Base," according to a Transportation Security Administration bulletin in March.
The internal bulletin describes the program's goal as thwarting threats to commercial aircraft "posed by unknown or partially known terrorists," and gives the agency broad discretion over which air travelers to focus on and how closely they are tracked.
[...] But some air marshals, in interviews and internal communications shared with the Globe, say the program has them tasked with shadowing travelers who appear to pose no real threat — a businesswoman who happened to have traveled through a Mideast hot spot, in one case; a Southwest Airlines flight attendant, in another; a fellow federal law enforcement officer, in a third.
Since this initiative launched in March, dozens of air marshals have raised concerns about the Quiet Skies program with senior officials and colleagues, sought legal counsel, and expressed misgivings about the surveillance program, according to interviews and documents reviewed by the Globe.
"What we are doing [in Quiet Skies] is troubling and raising some serious questions as to the validity and legality of what we are doing and how we are doing it," one air marshal wrote in a text message to colleagues.
Source: http://apps.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/graphics/2018/07/tsa-quiet-skies/?p1=HP_SpecialTSA [Ed Note: Not available for all browser modes]
Also at CNN, Fortune, The Verge, and The Hill.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday July 30 2018, @09:24PM (6 children)
I know I'm going to regret asking, but how was the Federal Reserve a worse mistake? Have you seen the history of banking in the U.S. prior to it? Yes, there are economists who have argued that the Fed's policies in the 1920s significantly contributed to the great depression. But aside from that crisis (and I'm not downplaying it), the Fed led to a century of financial stability much unlike the U.S. had seen prior (and arguably contributed to the U.S. global economic dominance).
Is it perfect? Far from it. And there are arguments that we should have moved to something better by now. But compared to the serious monetary panics (and unless you lived through the Great Depression, it's hard to understand what I mean by "panics") happening every few years that was the norm before, the era since the Fed was formed has been a "walk in the park" for financial markets.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:12AM (2 children)
A 1999 article [mises.org] warned:
A 2004 article [newyorker.com] warned:
What this means is that stock prices have been rising on the foundation of nothing more than an increase in the quantity of money.
Eventually [nytimes.com] the warnings were heard.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday July 31 2018, @12:44PM (1 child)
I explicitly said the Fed isn't the ideal situation, and it makes mistakes... sometimes huge ones. (Though blaming the housing crisis entirely on Fed policy is absolutely not fair, though it was a contributor.)
The question about whether the Fed was a "mistake" is whether we'd have more or less insane monetary panics without it. Given the history of U.S. financial markets before the Fed, I undoubtedly think we would have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 05 2018, @10:58AM
Who blamed the 2008 crisis entirely on the Federal Reserve? You seem to be attempting a strawman argument.
The Federal Reserve was founded in 1913, when paper money had only been in use in the United States for about 51 years. You write of unspecified "monetary panics." Don't you think it natural that people would be uneasy about the new currency? Since 1913, there have been other changes in the world of finance. In my opinion, the present-day United States resembles its pre-1913 incarnation less than it resembles the developed countries of the present day. After 104 years, none of them have chosen to replicate the Federal Reserve in their own banking systems.
The Federal Reserve is charged with looking after the interests of both private banks and the public. Those interests diverge [businessinsider.com].
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:21AM
A 1999 article [mises.org] warned:
A 2004 article [newyorker.com] warned:
Eventually [nytimes.com] the warnings were heard.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:35AM
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE88E9ICdiphYjJkeeLL2O09eJoC8r7Dc
Of course, MM is a gold bug, but at least that means he has skin in the game.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:47PM
My understanding is that some people are under the delusion that stuffing currency in their mattress is supposed to be a sound investment strategy. And for the real goldbugs, the US dollar has been about to collapse for 30+ years, which puts them in the same category as those who are disappointed the world didn't end last Friday.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.